13:50:38 #startmeeting Amsterdam M1 Review #2 13:50:38 Meeting started Fri Jul 7 13:50:38 2017 UTC. The chair is kennypaul. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 13:50:38 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic. 13:50:38 The meeting name has been set to 'amsterdam_m1_review__2' 13:51:26 #chair CaseyODL phrobb 13:51:26 Current chairs: CaseyODL kennypaul phrobb 13:53:47 #chair gildaslanilis 13:53:47 Current chairs: CaseyODL gildaslanilis kennypaul phrobb 14:01:01 #info Ranny Haiby, Nokia 14:01:17 #info Jason Hunt, IBM 14:01:31 #Sonu covering for Rajesh from Intel 14:01:40 hello Jamil from Orange 14:01:47 #info Xiaojun Xie, China Telecom 14:02:22 #info Huabing Zhao on behalf of Zhaoxing Meng, ZTE 14:02:36 #info stephen terrill, Ericsson 14:03:57 #info Alla Goldner, Amdocs 14:04:17 can't say :my pleasure", but :-) 14:05:09 #info Lingli Deng, China Mobile 14:05:10 #info Chris Donley, Huawei 14:05:59 #info Xinhui Li, VMware 14:07:44 #info simple voice vote 14:08:14 #info approval considered to be granted if no objections 14:08:28 #topic modeling 14:09:30 #info Sonu covering for Rajesh from Intel 14:11:34 #info concerns over the number of committers 14:13:22 #info if a committer is also a code contributor that person's name should be in both locations 14:14:01 #info a committer should not be committing their own code. 14:14:40 #info the code for this is already very mature 14:17:33 #info Deng recommends waiting until code freeze to lock down committers 14:19:48 #info discussion over "parser" definition 14:21:18 Committer should deliver code 14:22:58 #agree w/ contingency of clarification of committers and resource allocation updates 14:23:23 #topic Service Orchestrator 14:23:25 The risk with committers signing up on their own is that they have the power to commit code. Typically, you have to demonstrate your technical credentials and contributions before being named a committer. If I were a project lead, that would concern me. 14:24:05 #info (JasonHunt) "The risk with committers signing up on their own is that they have the power to commit code. Typically, you have to demonstrate your technical credentials and contributions before being named a committer. If I were a project lead, that would concern me." 14:24:40 #info (Jamil) "Committer should deliver code" 14:28:23 #info (Seshu) TBDs in the checklist are pending a meeting- not concerned with ability to complete 14:28:46 #info (Helen) A committer should be a contributor, plus a committer has right to review other's code. 14:30:05 #info same contingency on resource allocation 14:30:48 #info discussion of proposals w/ architecture committee 14:31:16 #agree review approved w/ contingency 14:31:58 #topic Multi VIM/Cloud 14:37:36 #action in PTL meeting need to follow up on API risks 14:38:04 #info team has agreement w/ APPC but not with DCAE yet 14:40:36 #info potential misunderstandings can be made worse with many committers 14:42:13 #action add risk section to checklist 14:44:11 #info in addition to weekly PTL meeting suggest assigning roles for xfunc coordination 14:45:11 #agree with contingency on resource allocation and action of risk section 14:46:01 #topic CLI 14:46:22 #info need updates to inbound APIs 14:51:40 #action -gildas review commit/code review best practices at the PTL meeting 14:51:52 #agree Review approved 14:52:25 #topic Integration 14:54:04 #info need to clarify what testing is specific to Amsterdam 14:54:19 #undo 14:54:19 Removing item from minutes: 14:54:42 #info need to clarify what testing is covered in Amsterdam 14:56:29 #info testing for vCPE and VoLTE use cases but not Demos 14:57:06 #info discussion over responsibility for owning the Demos. 15:00:40 #info would like updates on progress of automation 15:02:42 #info Helen would like to see better defined committer crtiteria from TSM 15:03:07 #undo 15:03:07 Removing item from minutes: 15:03:27 #info Helen would like to see better defined committer criteria from TSC 15:03:49 #action gildas take issue of Demos to TSC 15:04:08 #agree Review Approved 15:04:40 #topic CCSKD 15:06:16 #info docker can be removed from the list of API dependenies 15:07:04 #agreed Review Approved 15:08:19 #topic Documentation 15:15:48 #info using 3 repos versus an umbrella project approach 15:18:57 #info (Lingli) need to formalize the self-committer policy 15:19:06 #agreed Review approved 15:19:48 #topic External API Framework 15:22:28 #link https://wiki.onap.org/display/DW/Committer+Best+Practices 15:22:51 #info above related to committer best practices 15:23:06 #agreed Review approved 15:24:18 #topic ONAP Operations Manager 15:25:42 #info Release Deliverables - defined, but not linked to the page yet. 15:27:48 #info need better understanding of roll back capabilities 15:29:01 #action PTL fill in check list. 15:30:51 #info roll back will need joint testing 15:31:12 #agreed Review Approved w/ contingency on resource allocation 15:31:30 #undo 15:31:30 Removing item from minutes: 15:31:58 #agreed Review Approved w/ contingency on resource allocation and checklist 15:32:36 #topic VNF Requirements 15:34:34 #undo 15:34:34 Removing item from minutes: 15:35:27 #topic follow up reviews from last review 15:37:49 #info (Hui Deng) concerns over violations to charter by paring down committer list. 15:38:30 #info (Chris D) PTL should ask committers to voluntarily step down 15:39:10 #info (Helen C) if no one steps down, then what? 15:40:38 #info (Chris D) can take a vote among committers once there is experience w/ the team 15:43:53 #topic Project Review of Network Function Change Management proposal 15:44:40 #info this would be an end-to-end across all projects- more logical as a Subcommittee 15:45:33 #info OR as a usecase for Beijing release 15:48:13 #info project proposal will be withdrawn 15:48:44 #endmeeting